M. M. Sundresh | |
---|---|
Judge of the Supreme Court of India | |
Assumed office 31 August 2021 | |
Nominated by | N. V. Ramana |
Appointed by | Ram Nath Kovind |
Judge of the Madras High Court | |
In office 31 March 2009 –30 August 2021 | |
Nominated by | K. G. Balakrishnan |
Appointed by | Pratibha Patil |
Personal details | |
Born | M. M. Sundresh 21 July 1962 Erode,Tamil Nadu,India |
Parent | Advocate Mr. V K Muthusamy |
Alma mater | Loyola College,Madras Law College |
M. M. Sundresh (born on 21 July 1962) is a judge of the Supreme Court of India. He previously served as a judge of the Madras High Court. [1]
M. M. Sudresh was born in Erode on 21 July 1962. Sundresh had studied his schooling at Erode and he had completed his P.U.C (Pre University Course) at Erode. He had obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree from Loyola College,Chennai. Sundresh received a law degree from the Madras Law College. [2]
Sundresh had registered his name in the roll of advocates,in 1985 in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. The Government of Tamil Nadu had appointed Sundresh as the counsel for the state government. He was working as government advocate from 1991 to 1996. Sundresh had appeared for the TNSSIDC (Corporation for the Development of Small Scale Industries) and practiced on all the fields of law at Madras High Court. He had joined in the chamber of S. Sivasubramaniam. He also joined in the chamber of his father V. K. Muthusamy. He was selected to the RO System Monitoring Committee to watch the erection of ROS (Reverse Osmosis System) in Thiruppur District,Karur District and Erode District. [3]
Sundresh was elevated to the Madras High Court from the bar,on 31 March 2009. On 29 March 2011,his appointment was made permanent.
Sundresh had participated in the inaugural function of the new building for Mediation and Conciliation,Lok Adalat and Arbitration Center at the Madras High Court premises,in the presence of the other administrative judges and judicial officers. [4] He was elevated as a judge of the Supreme Court of India on 26 August 2021 and took his oath on 31 August 2021.
A division bench of Justices Sundresh and N. Sathish Kumar had ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation probe into a series of elephant poaching incidents reported in the State. They also observed the network involved was cutting across boundaries. The court order was passed on the basis of the report submitted by the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau,which carried out an extensive study in this regard. [5]
Justices Sundresh and S Ananthi of the Madras High Court has asked the central government to consider having Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's photo on Indian currency notes. The bench lauded the sacrifices made by Netaji. Justices Sundresh and Ananthi said that Netaji's contribution towards the Indian freedom movement was unparalleled. The advocate for the Union Government opposed the plea stating that it was not maintainable. At last,the bench had refused to allow the request of the petitioner. [6]
A batch of petitions were filed by 'Akhila Bharatha Brahmin Association' and others seeking issuance of the income certificate for EWS. Justices M M Sundresh and R Hemalatha,of the Madras High Court while hearing the case relating to the "Economically Weaker Section Certificate (EWS Certificates)" had asked the Advocate General Vijay Narayan to know as to why such a condition that the certificate would be valid only for getting central government jobs and admissions in the centrally-run educational institutions,was laid down?
Advocate General Vijay Narayan said it was for the Central Government to clarify.
Advocate for the Tamil Nadu government submitted to the High Court that the EWS certificate issued to the Economically Weaker Sections can be used only to apply for posts under the 10 per cent quota in Central Government jobs and educational institutions only. [7]
Justice Sundresh and Justice R Hemalatha,of the Madras High Court issued a notice to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). asking it to respond to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed with the Court challenging. The Non-Performing Assets (NPA) norms set by the banking regulator was challenged by the Petitioner. in that Public Interest Litigation Petition,the Bench had ordered the RBI to file the Reply.
In this case a direction was sought for from the Court to direct RBI to form a committee consisting of experts,stake-holders,bankers,economists and chartered accountants to re-look at the income-recognition and asset-classification norms currently in force and recommend a new set of norms. [8]
The full bench of Justices Sundresh,Bharathidasan,and Venkatesh have ruled that a challenge to an acquittal order passed by a Magistrate Court in private complaint should be filed before the High court and not before the Sessions Court. It also observed that a private complainant (such as a complainant in a cheque bouncing case) is different from that of a victim in a police report. [9]
Justice P. N. Prakash of the Madras High Court was hearing this case earlier. But later,he had referred the case to the larger bench to decide whether the Judgement in Ganapathy Case relying on Satya Pal Singh V. State of Madhya Pradesh and others (2015) was correct or not? In the Satya Pal case,the Supreme Court had found that the term 'victim' also includes 'a complainant'. Therefore,it was held that a complainant can also invoke the proviso to Section 372 of CrPC and file an appeal against an order of acquittal.[ citation needed ]
When answering the question,the larger bench ruled that the S Ganapathy judgment had been passed without considering an earlier three-Judge Bench ruling of the Supreme Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H (2010). In the Damodar case it was held by the Supreme Court that in the case of acquittal by the judicial magistrate first class,the complainant could appeal to the High Court under Section 378(4) of the CrPC,and thereafter for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 136.[ citation needed ]
The judgment was delivered by Justice Sundresh on behalf of Justice Bharathidasan. Justice Venkatesh pronounced a judgement concurring with the main judgment by stating that a victim in a case rooted in a police report and a complainant in a case arising out of a private complaint have been given a separate path to work out their right of appeal and one cannot cross over into the path of the other.[ citation needed ]
Almost all the High courts have held that a complainant can file an Appeal against acquittal only before the High Court under Section 378 (4) of Cr.PC.[ citation needed ]
The Supreme Court of India is the supreme judicial authority and the highest court of the Republic of India. It is the final court of appeal for all civil and criminal cases in India. It also has the power of judicial review. The Supreme Court,which consists of the Chief Justice of India and a maximum of fellow 33 judges,has extensive powers in the form of original,appellate and advisory jurisdictions.
The Court of Appeal of Quebec is the highest judicial court in Quebec,Canada. It hears cases in Quebec City and Montreal.
The high courts of India are the highest courts of appellate jurisdiction in each state and union territory of India. However,a high court exercises its original civil and criminal jurisdiction only if the subordinate courts are not authorized by law to try such matters for lack of peculiary,territorial jurisdiction. High courts may also enjoy original jurisdiction in certain matters,if so designated specially by the constitution,a state or union law.
Vaiyapuri Periyakaruppiah is a retired judge of the Madras High Court in India.
Puspanathan Wilson is a Senior Advocate in India and has served as the Additional Solicitor General of India between August 2012 and May 2014,and the Additional Advocate General of the State of Tamil Nadu between August 2008 and May 2011.
Uday Umesh Lalit is an Indian lawyer and former Supreme Court Judge,who served as the 49th Chief Justice of India. Previously,he has served as a judge of Supreme Court of India. Prior to his elevation as a judge,he practised as a senior counsel at the Supreme Court. Justice Lalit is one of the six senior counsels who have been directly elevated to the Supreme Court. He is currently ‘Distinguished Visiting Professor’at Ashank Desai Centre for Policy Studies,Indian Institute of Technology,Bombay. and Distinguished Visiting Professor at West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences
Narayanan Nadar Paul Vasanthakumar is from Palliyadi,Kanyakumari District of Tamil Nadu,India and was the Chief Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. He retired on 14 March 2017. He was appointed an additional judge of High Court of Madras on December,2005 and permanent judge on 20 April 2007. He took oath as the chief justice of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in February 2015.
The Colour TV case was a legal case against J. Jayalalithaa,the late Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu,a state in South India from 1991–1996. J.Jayalalithaa,her associate VK Sasikala,and her ministerial colleague T. M. Selvaganapathy were charged with misusing their office to buy colour televisions at a higher price than quoted,then receiving substantial kickbacks. Jayalalithaa,Sasikala,and seven others were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 7 December 1996. The case and chargesheet were filed during the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) government headed by M. Karunanidhi in 1998. On 30 May 2000,Jayalalithaa and Sasikala were acquitted while a lower court convicted Selvaganapathy and six others and sentenced them to five years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000. It was one of the first instances where an ex-chief minister was arrested and sent to jail and one of the earliest examples of the conviction of a Member of Parliament in a corruption case. Selvaganapathy was a member of Parliament from the Tiruchengode constituency in Lok Sabha at the time of the verdict.
Indira Banerjee is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India and the eighth female judge in history of Supreme Court. Previously,she served as chief justice of the Madras High Court,the second woman to hold the position in India.
Ramalingam Sudhakar is an Indian Judge. He is former Chief Justice of Manipur High Court. He is also former Acting Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court and Judge of Jammu and Kashmir High Court and Madras High Court. He was born on 14 February 1959 and hails from Panapakkam Village,Vellore District in Tamil Nadu. He was overlooked and V. Ramasubramanian was chosen over him as a Supreme Court Judge. The Central Government has approved the appointment of former Chief Justice of Manipur High Court,Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar as the president of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for a period of five years in October 28,2021. Justice Sudhakar has been appointed for a period of five years from the date of appointment or till he attains the age of 67 or until further orders,whichever is earlier.
Justice Huluvadi G. Ramesh is the second seniormost Judge at the Madras High Court in India since April 2016. He briefly officiated as the Acting Chief Justice of the court from February 2017 till the appointment of Indira Banerjee as Chief Justice in April 2017. He was transferred to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh,Principal Seat at Jabalpur and assumed charge on 15.11.2018.
Vijaya Kamlesh Tahilramani is a former Indian judge and prosecutor,who last served as the Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. Previously,as a judge of the Bombay High Court,she notably upheld the conviction of several persons for the rape of a pregnant Muslim woman during the 2002 Gujarat riots,chastising investigative authorities for their inaction in the matter,and also refused parole for those convicted in the 1993 Bombay bombings. She retired in 2019,after refusing to accept a controversial transfer from the Madras High Court to the Meghalaya High Court.
Justice M Sathyanarayanan is Former Judge of the Madras High Court. He was the third judge chosen to deliver the verdict in the Tamil Nadu MLA disqualification case.
Darmar Murugesan is a former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court. He has occupied many key posts in the Judiciary of India. He was elevated as a Judge of the Madras High Court from the Bar. He had formerly occupied the post of Member National Human Rights Commission of India.
Justice Ratnavel Pandian Subbiah is a sitting Judge of the Charted High Court of Madras. Subbiah is the Executive Chairman for the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority. He was elevated as a Judge of High Court of Madras on 24 March 2008.
The Madras High Court is a High Court in India. It has appellate jurisdiction over the state of Tamil Nadu and the union territory of Puducherry. It is located in Chennai,and is the third oldest high court of India after the Calcutta High Court in Kolkata and Bombay High Court in Mumbai. The Madras High Court is one of four charter high courts of colonial India established in the four Presidency Towns of Madras,Bombay,Allahabad and Calcutta by letters patent granted by Queen Victoria,dated 26 June 1862. It exercises original jurisdiction over the city of Chennai,as well as extraordinary original jurisdiction,civil and criminal,under the letters patent and special original jurisdiction for the issue of writs under the Constitution of India. Covering 107 acres,the court complex is one of the largest in the world,second only to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. The four-storey administrative building attracts hundreds of litigants every day.
T. S. Sivagnanam is an Indian Judge. Presently,he is serving as the Chief Justice of Calcutta High Court. He is former Judge of Madras High Court.
Honorable Thiru. C. V. Karthikeyan is a sitting Judge of the Madras High Court. He is one of the Members of the Board of Governors of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh is a sitting Judge of the Madras High Court.
The Madras Bar Council or Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is the regulatory and statutorily representative body for lawyers practicing law in the state of Tamilnadu and Union Territory of Puducherry. It was constituted as per the mandatory requirement as per Advocates Act,1961 and Bar Council of India. In March 1953,S. R. Das as head of the 'All India Bar Committee',proposed the creation of the apex body as an All-India Bar Council and a Bar council at state levels and submitted a report to the Central Government of India. Members of Bar Council are elected from among members enrolled and practicing as lawyers practicing law in the state of Tamilnadu and Union Territory of Puducherry and they represent the state in Bar Council of India meetings. Bar Council of a place designs standards of professional conduct to be followed by members,and designs etiquettes and has the power to enforce disciplinary guidelines over the members of bar council.